Scientists warn that greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come

[longview]

It's quantitating the linear correlation between the two. How much more empirical does it get than that?

So are you saying it's wrong in saying this: "These projections thus provide a compelling case that global climate will continue to undergo significant warming in response to ongoing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."

So are you saying it's wrong when it concludes:"Hence, incorporating negative emissions enhances the ability to meet climate targets and avoid risk of continued warming after net zero is reached."


So? It's an established scientific model. Are you this upset with anyone using the heliocentric model of the solar system, the atomic model of matter, or the Newtonian model of gravity as well?

That's how science works. I thought you worked in the field.

1. Correlation is not causation!

2. Projections are not empirical evidence!

3. I am saying it does not show empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!

4. Simulations based in on assumptions that cannot be supported by empirical evidence can be wrong, and in this case are wrong!

 

[longview]

Proven lie


Why are you so scared to publish your paper and receive your Nobel prize for disproving the entire scientific community? I don’t get it.

Why not cite your proof and prove me wrong?

 

[rahl]

Why not cite your proof and prove me wrong?

Already have.

It’s so funny how certain you are, but how afraid you are to publish a scientific paper (considering you have zero scientific credentials) disproving the entire scientific community.

It’s ****ing hilarious how certain you are that all of science is wrong, but you and a handful of morons know better

 

[ataraxia]

1. Correlation is not causation!

You are denying both.

I have both the empirically observed correlations, as well as the molecular and physical mechanistic explanations for those observations.

Looks like my side is on a little firmer scientific ground.

2. Projections are not empirical evidence!

So doctors shouldn't project the behavior of any particular kind of cancer, and shipping lines should stop listening to weather reports on the path of hurricanes. Got it.

3. I am saying it does not show empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!

There is no "it"- there are numerous lines of evidence, models, and empirical observation- all converging on the same conclusions.

So what would count as empirical evidence for you?

4. Simulations based in on assumptions that cannot be supported by empirical evidence can be wrong, and in this case are wrong!

Historical predictions (black line) vs empirical observations to date (red line):

How much more accurate or empirical would you like to see it?

 

[Bullseye]

They go to church? Awesome

I asked the question - you obviously have no answer,

 

[longview]

Already have.

It’s so funny how certain you are, but how afraid you are to publish a scientific paper (considering you have zero scientific credentials) disproving the entire scientific community.

It’s ****ing hilarious how certain you are that all of science is wrong, but you and a handful of morons know better

I’m sorry you lack the technical ability to argue your point!

 

[longview]

You are denying both.

I have both the empirically observed correlations, as well as the molecular and physical mechanistic explanations for those observations.

Looks like my side is on a little firmer scientific ground.


So doctors shouldn't project the behavior of any particular kind of cancer, and shipping lines should stop listening to weather reports on the path of hurricanes. Got it.

“It” was the #3 citation!

There is no "it"- there are numerous lines of evidence, models, and empirical observation- all converging on the same conclusions.

So what would count as empirical evidence for you?


Historical predictions (black line) vs empirical observations to date (red line):

How much more accurate or empirical would you like to see it?

1. Not at all, there is a correlation between the temperature and the CO2 level, it just is not empirical evidence that the CO2 level increases caused the warming.
There is also a correlation between human population and temperature, it means almost nothing.
2.projection are fine as long as they are based on observations. There is no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!

3. It was the #3 citation!
Empirical evidence would look like a measured increase in the longwave energy imbalance as the CO2 levels increase!
As it stands now the longwave energy imbalance decreased as the greenhouse gas levels increased!

4. Again correlation does not mean causation!
BTW that study correlated TCR to observed warming not ECS!

 

[dcsports]

How is talking about the stated official policy of the US in this matter a deflection?

You didn't do that.

 

[dcsports]

China is the world's largest producer of alternative energy and more is going online every year. Less than 50% of their generating capacity is from fossil energy. There is no such thing as clean coal when it comes to CO2. Coal releases the most CO2 per watt of any type of generator plant.

Addressed repeatedly. We're not talking about what alternative energy they produce - or claim to. We're talking about the greenhouse gasses they produce.

Also not clear where that article is getting it's information from, but they were nowhere near that, at least a two years ago

China: Energy Country Profile

China: Many of us want an overview of how much energy our country consumes, where it comes from, and if we’re making progress on decarbonizing our energy mix. This page provides the data for your chosen country across all of the key metrics on this topic.

ourworldindata.org

 

[rahl]

I’m sorry you lack the technical ability to argue your point!

You remain refuted via peer reviewed science. You and a handful of fringe morons with zero scientific background do not override the entire scientific community

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

this is a poor attempt to distract & deflect............

Are you suggesting that most Trumpers are losers who do poorly in an economic sense?? People talking science have at least average brains. It ain't "rocket science" Pipewrench....

Most of them thought they would get a pension. Until the companies they worked for moved over seas. Then others shut down and reopened under new management. All senior people were tossed out for cheap labor here illegally. That is why they voted for Trump. They were sold out by the left.

 

[ataraxia]

3. It was the #3 citation!
Empirical evidence would look like a measured increase in the longwave energy imbalance as the CO2 levels increase!
As it stands now the longwave energy imbalance decreased as the greenhouse gas levels increased!

This is like saying that the only empirical evidence that would count for the world being round is that we look at the horizon and see that it is curved.

 

[Geoist]

The elephant in the room that the left refuses to address with respect to greenhouse gasses is China. (and to a lesser extent, India).

Aaaand there it is. Been saying for years now that conservatives will have to come around on climate change... but when they do they'll blame everyone else (especially foreigners) but themselves.

 

[dcsports]

Aaaand there it is. Been saying for years now that conservatives will have to come around on climate change... but when they do they'll blame everyone else (especially foreigners) but themselves.

So you want to beat a straw man?

What does this have to do with the topic? If we're talking about reducing greenhouse gasses, does it not make sense to look at who's producing most of them, and added to them over the past three decades?

 

[tshade]

Most of them thought they would get a pension. Until the companies they worked for moved over seas. Then others shut down and reopened under new management. All senior people were tossed out for cheap labor here illegally. That is why they voted for Trump. They were sold out by the left.

???????? The Left ???? What was "left" about any of that ??

Blamers are losers...............sorry

 

[Geoist]

So you want to beat a straw man?

What does this have to do with the topic? If we're talking about reducing greenhouse gasses, does it not make sense to look at who's producing most of them, and added to them over the past three decades?

The average person in America emits 14 tons of CO2 annually while the average person in China emits about 9 tons. Perhaps you should focus on the country in which you actually have political power in before you bitch about other countries (assuming you actually care about climate change).

 

[longview]

You remain refuted via peer reviewed science. You and a handful of fringe morons with zero scientific background do not override the entire scientific community

You have not refuted anything!
Your citations did not show the claimed empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!

 

[Geoist]

Historically being the operative word. Sure, we benefitted, as did the world as a whole, from the industrial revolution. We also learned a lot since then, and have been leading the way in reducing CO2 emissions. We are continuing to increase output and reduce emissions.

China (and India) IGNORED the lessons learned by the rese of the world and are investing in dirty energy and productions. They are responsible for the majority of the world's emissions, and have been for decades. While the rest of the world decreased emissions, they increased rapidly. They are pumping out more than we ever have, and increasing. And we're subsidizing this by buying things from them that they are able to make cheaply because they don't care about the environment.

Again, if we want to reduce greenhouse gasses, we have to address the people making them.

What? China leads in renewable energy production:

1. China​

China, the world’s most populous country, also happens to be the largest producer of renewable energy. With a massive installed capacity in hydropower, wind power, solar power, and bioenergy, China's commitment to a greener future is undeniable. The country's rapid industrial growth has historically been associated with high levels of pollution, but in recent years, the focus has shifted to renewable energy as a way to combat this issue. China's government has implemented some of the most ambitious renewable energy policies, aiming to create one of the world's largest power stations in the coming years.

Top Countries in Renewable Energy Production

In the quest for sustainability, the property sector is rapidly turning toward renewable energy as a beacon of innovation and forward-thinking. Whether you're a homeowner, part of a community association, or a commercial developer, understanding which countries are at the forefront of renewable...

www.landapp.com

 

[longview]

This is like saying that the only empirical evidence that would count for the world being round is that we look at the horizon and see that it is curved.

Not at all, the 15 um dipole moment of CO2 can only result in equal or lower energy wavelengths,
We are warming because of much higher energy wavelengths of light!

 

[rahl]

You have not refuted anything!

This is a lie

Your citations did not show the claimed empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming!

This is also a lie

 

[ataraxia]

Not at all, the 15 um dipole moment of CO2 can only result in equal or lower energy wavelengths,
We are warming because of much higher energy wavelengths of light!

Not at all. I answered this previously. What was it about my last response to this that you didnt understand?

 

[dcsports]

The average person in America emits 14 tons of CO2 annually while the average person in China emits about 9 tons. Perhaps you should focus on the country in which you actually have political power in before you bitch about other countries (assuming you actually care about climate change).

We've addressed the per capita point MANY times, and it fails to address the topic. China is emitting three times the amount of CO2 of the US, plus much more particulate matter and other pollutants. The US has been decreasing CO2 emissions, and increasing output, for 3-4 decades. Again, if we're going to address GLOBAL output of CO2, that cannot be done without addressing China.

And yes, we absolutely should put political and economic pressure on them to do so.

 

[dcsports]

What? China leads in renewable energy production:

Good grief. Welcome to the thread. Maybe read back a couple of pages? We've addressed this repeatedly as well.

Again, BACK to the topic, this does not address the issue (and thread topic) of global CO2 emissions. Sure, they destroyed ecosystems to create massive dams for hydroelectric power, but they also built many coal plants.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The US has historically been the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases on the planet. In a lot of ways the US benefited greatly by using up the planetary budget of emitting CO2 so it is not a great argument to say but China... but India when the US is directly responsible for the majority of emissions.

The US should be leading on this... but we won't because it will affect the share price of corporations.

On a per capita basis China produces half the greenhouse games of Americans, the difference between Canada and China is even bigger.

To expect that India and China remain undeveloped and the people poor so Americans and Canadians can continue to live relative lives of luxury to keep carbon emissions low is certainly not fair.

As it stands China is developing renewable energy sources at breakneck speeds with 50% of its energy coming from renewable sources and or nuclear power. It is making tangible moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ie ev vehicles, mass solar power, mass wind power, mass hydro power investments and building new nuclear plants including thorium experimental plants

 

[Geoist]

Good grief. Welcome to the thread.

Sorry, not gonna read through 20+ pages. I have a life. Defend your positions or move on.